California is a trendy place, with a communal sense of fashion that extends to such things as taxing and spending. Last fall several economists from Indiana attended an academic conference largely dedicated to the 30th anniversary of California’s Proposition 13. For those you not of a certain age, this was the first statewide property tax caps passed by referendum. The Indiana delegation was especially welcomed at this conference because our state was the most recent to pass similar legislation – the tax reform of 2008.

The months since the anniversary have been far more instructive than anything the past thirty years has provided. For you see, California state government is dead broke. Their debt alone is twice the annual expenditure of Indiana, and their bond rating now hovers at the same level of Guatemala. California can no longer sustain its government. Workdays at state government agencies have been trimmed by 10 percent with unpaid furloughs in every branch. All university staff face a 10 percent pay cut, and the greatest public university system in the world is about to shed talent at an unrecoverable rate. Why is this happening, and what lessons does it hold for Indiana?

Proposition 13, which limited property tax to 1 percent of residential value was passed in the wake of huge tax increases. The lure of California caused a real estate boom accompanied by big increases in school spending. The legislature as well as local governments did a poor job of internalizing this lesson. Over the next three decades other taxes spiked – sales and especially income taxes were increased to meet the demands of a government unwilling to constrain spending.

Californians responded. The state permits a broad referendum process. Voters have rebelled, limiting discretionary tax increases to less than 40 percent of total revenues. In other words, elected leaders have repeatedly failed to heed the warning of voters on taxes. Voters have responded by repeatedly limiting the powers of elected leaders to raise taxes. The result is a government unaccustomed to the rigors of fiscal debate. They spend their time on peripheral issues that at least provide the rest of us a good chuckle.

This is the lesson for Indiana. What has happened in California can also happen here. The next few years are equally critical in crafting local governments in particular that are responsive to voter needs. The unseemly scramble for extra revenue sources does not portend well for this process.

It is important to note also that my comments here are not a blanket call for low taxes. In the two years before moving to Indiana, I twice supported referendums to increase my property taxes, which were already higher than in any Indiana community at any time in history. Now as then, I am untroubled to be taxed, perhaps heavily, to receive high quality public services. But I have to trust that the spending will be wise. My hope is that the debate turns from tax rates to how we spend those tax dollars.

Michael J. Hicks, PhD, is the director of the Center for Business and Economic Research and the George and Frances Ball distinguished professor of economics in the Miller College of Business at Ball State University. Hicks earned doctoral and master’s degrees in economics from the University of Tennessee and a bachelor’s degree in economics from Virginia Military Institute. He has authored two books and more than 60 scholarly works focusing on state and local public policy, including tax and expenditure policy and the impact of Wal-Mart on local economies.

Ball State CBER Data Center (cberdata.org) is a product of the Center for Business and Economic Research at Ball State
University. CBER's mission is to conduct relevant and timely public policy research on a wide range of economic issues
affecting the state and nation. Learn more.